On the advice of a friend, I read The End of Everything by Victor Davis Hanson.

This is quite different from the novels I usually read.

Hanson takes four societies – Thebes, Carthage, Constantinople and Tenochtitlan – to discuss war and obliteration. His central thesis is that, through naïveté and foolish confidence, some societies are utterly annihilated. Thebes, for example, was destroyed by Alexander the Great, Carthage by the Romans, Constantinople by the Ottomans and Tenochtitlan by Cortez.

Both Thebes and Constantinople believed (foolishly according to Hanson) their walls and fortifications would protect them. Carthage did not realize Rome still held a grudge for a previous war. And in Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs were more interested in capturing their enemies for sacrifice to their Gods than killing them. The Spanish, trained soldiers all, mowed the Aztecs down with their superior armor and weaponry despite their much smaller numbers. The winners then felt they had a right to totally destroy the society, apparently because the loser didn’t just give up.

Although he doesn’t pull this out of his central argument, my takeaway is that each of these societies were destroyed by an invader/conquorer. Although the Aztecs were vastly outmatched by the steel armor and the guns of the Spanish, in the other three cases the military technology was roughly even.

Then my question would be: Should the early American colonists have given up in the face of Great Britain’s might? True, there were factors that gave the early Americans an edge (the distance across the Atlantic, British military tactics that remained unchanged against the guerrilla warfare practiced by the Americans, and the entry of the French on the American side) but we were vastly outmatched. We withdrew from Vietnam, despite our superior military power. And should Ukraine fold and allow Putin and Russia to sweep over them?

Thought provoking.